Marc Stevens’ Habeas Petition for Ademo Freeman of CopBlock.org

Wow, $100/hr phone consultation, $25 for downloadable templates..seems Marc has a nice business selling things. I also notice he tends to explain ‘you can’t win, but I’ll help you lower your fees’ angle…how interesting.

Is Marc a Freeman of the Land? A guru? Slowing fooling the common man out of money when they have run in with the law, mislead that he will save them? Not really save them right, just ‘lower’ your fees. Sounds like a scam to me, just the legal-speak all the while, your paying him.

I notice he doens’t claim to be a member of the bar in any state as well, in fact, from his own website, “He is not a lawyer and is not trained in the law..”

…ha ha ha, he’s a con man. Using bullshit arguments for this and that, all the while suckers pay him, thinking they are ‘freeman’ fighting tryanny.

What’s that old saying, about a sucker being born every minute…

common sense, did you decide to stop attempting to discuss your opinion and the reasons for it?

When does Marc mention badges?
He lives in Arizona.
What posts of Marc’s are you having trouble with, I might be able to help.

Ademo was pro se, just like many pro se-ers.

Trial errors:

Ademo focused on the wrong argument. Bad clothes. Bad facial expressions and body language. He asked mean questions. The questions on cross were harmful to his case. He didn’t attack the elements of the charges. His questions were too complex, they were trying to make a point. Cross exam is only for poking holes in the wall. Then the State laid a foundation for privacy by asking foundational questions, victim awareness, undercover office, etc., then popped the main question: “does the public have access to that information? is the public allowed to come sit at your desk? how would that impact?”

This is where Ademo loses. The State focuses on being the best of the show. He uses tactics to steal the show. Introduced example of distraction, said as much.

What do you know about the wiretapping law? (Ademo)
Are you aware of the wiretapping law? (Prosecutor)
(Prosecutor did follow up questions.)

Laying foundational questions lead to popping the big question, and also point the witness to answer the big question in the way you want. The foundational questions that are being laid, explain, more fully the big question.

A question by itself, a single question, cannot really tell the witness what you are saying. You have to ask many foundational questions that lead up to the big question, so that the witness really understands what you are asking, and can answer quickly and simply.

Ademo looked back at the audience, he looked like a frightened rabbit, not good for trying to prove innocense.

The concept of public scrutiny was his defense. He should have not assumed that all people think like him and his small community of people. He should have at least attacked the elements.

Witness sequestration causes the video evidence to be played over and over, reinforcing it’s importance to the jury.

Instead of taking notes during the direct, use something simple and discrete, and show interest and listen confidently to the witness.

Attempts to argue legal-ness of a law to a jury are meaningless because they cannot change the law as public policy, don’t do this.

Arguments about the procedure taken by the police are fruitless.

The prosecutor is the lead actor, but yields procedure and decisions to the judge, because he knows that if the judge likes him, so will the jury.

The prosecutor asks the witnesses questions that show that they are good people and have done things that relate to the jury.

Ademo spoke quickly. The jury was further hampered by this. He didn’t deviate from this in the video. He cut them off on the phone, just being a jerk (in the eyes of the jury). He did this to the jury members.

A rally is a party without alcohol and a band, instead a general idea and mass hypnosis. Instead, become self-aware, become self-empowered. Learn the law and control your mind, forget egoism. Just because you make a website, and because people YAY you, doesn’t mean you make any real impact.

The State’s questioning tells a story.

The State used the school and the kids, academic concerns and privacy concerns.

The State used questions to rebut Ademo’s contention about public policy and jury nullification.

At the beginning, the public attending is laughing at the prosecutor and the cops, but by the third witness, they all realize that the prosecutor is in charge.

You must be in charge of the whole show, but disciplined and humble.

Too technical, not simple questions, it was confusing to the jury.

His questions didn’t do anything against the State’s story. Too many questions mislead the jury and confuse them.

Yes his political point is accurate, but that is NOT the point. The point is that he is being tried for felony wiretapping. The witnesses are not on trial. The defendant is putting the witnesses on trial. He says “alleged” too much.

Ademo gets distracted and ends early. His style of questioning is inflexible.

The State is wearing a better suit and looks better. When at the bench, the prosecutor has the back of his head towards the jury, and doesn’t show emotion, doesn’t make gestures, looks like he is more in control. The prosecutor is not mean to him and even makes the defendant smile and nod and laugh a little bit towards him.

LUNCH – closing arguments.

He acts like this is fun and smiles a lot because he is getting his ass handed to him. He acts like a punk kid in court and unprofessional.

The audience is disruptive and that hurts Ademo’s case.

Ademo is typing notes, the state is rearranging papers. The state is prepared with multiple formats in a flexible system.

Ademo asked for a few moments to collect his thoughts on paper.

In his closing, he proved the state’s elements.

He is asking for jury nullification, if the law should apply.

In his closing, it is written and read off a long yellow sheet, and said…the end, fucking gay ass argument.

The state’s position is that he break the law and is okay with it.

The prosecutor does not even look at the judge during his speaking with the jury.

Prosecutor’s strong closing argument. He argues the law. That anyone paid by the state has no expectation of privacy. He says that the legislature made the limit.

State refers to the jury instructions and how the defendant’s argument of expectation of privacy is not in the instructions – WRONG ARGUMENT.

The path we go down. The path you lead the jury on. No question that he’s guilty. The elements.

Prosecutor is stone cold the entire time.

As a juror, you want to like the defendant and help him to get free, but he has to try hard and not be a dick.

The instructions are so long and complex that they are almost useless. If the judge is boring in reading the jury instructions, then it will be up to who presented a better case.

Direct or circumstantial evidence, reason and common sense, use the rain outside and closed window analogy.

The jury instructions are 1/3 of the time of trial and nearly 80% of the information dumped on the jury. Therefore, cut out everything that is not sniping.

Purposely – mental state.

Conscious object to engage.

Specific intent.

Knew or aware of what he was doing, purposely requires more than that.

Pretrial behavior of the judge and prosecuting attorney is different than during trial. This is misleading to the defendant.

Can ask for more on the record.

The way that the defendant communicated with the judge was not clear and not loud and not confident.

The prosecutor got the judge to read the elements 3 or 4 times by stating that the judge read it wrong.

The way the defendant acted after the trial, made him look bad.

In summation:

The STATE kicked ADEMO’S ass! Learn from this! Grow from this!
You can’t be very activist in prison!

Thank you for filming this, it is good practice to know how to not make mistakes.